These prayers are new to me. Hopefully they will be to you, too. I found them in the book A Manual of Practical Devotion to St. Joseph by Fr. Patrignani, SJ. The book is a veritable bible of means of practicing devotion to St. Joseph. I have found it edifying to read, as someone who trusts immensely in the intercession and spiritual guidance of St. Joseph.

A Prayer for Purity

O holy St. Joseph, father and guardian of virgins, to whose fidelity was confided Jesus, innocence itself, and Mary, the Virgin of virgins; I supplicate myself and conjure you, through Jesus and Mary, this sacred deposit which is so dear to your heart, to grant that, preserved from all sin, and perfectly pure in mind, heart, and body, I may have the happiness of always serving Jesus and Mary very faithfully. Amen.

Ejaculatory Prayer

Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, I give you my heart and my life. Jesus, Joseph and Mary, assist me in my last agony. Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, grant that I may die in your holy company. (three hundred day’s indulgence, applicable to the souls in Purgatory)

Prayer for a person with a laborious occupation:

Blessed Joseph, who have passed your life in the painful labors of a humble profession, I take you as my model and my protector. Obtain for me that I may bear patiently the pains and fatigues of my state, that, like you, sanctifying my labors, I may merit a crown in Heaven. Amen.

Prayer to Implore the Protection of St. Joseph

What consolation do I feel, O my admirable and powerful protector, in hearing your servant, St. Teresa, assure us that no one ever invoked you in vain, and that all those who have a true devotion to you, and who seek your help with confidence, are always heard! Animated with a like confidence, I have recourse to you, O worthy spouse of the Virgin of virgins; I take refuge at your feet; and a sinner though I am, I dare to present myself tremblingly to you. Do not reject my humble prayers, O you that have borne the glorious name of Father of Jesus, listen favorably to them, and deign to intercede with Him who has been wiling to be called your Son, and Who has always honored you as His father. Amen.

Act of Consecration to St. Joseph

O blessed St. Joseph, I consecrate myself to your honor, and give myself entirely to you. Be always my father, my protector, and my guide, in the way of salvation. Obtain for me a great purity of heart, and a practical love of the interior life. After your example, may I do all my actions for the greater glory of God, in union with the divine hearts of Jesus and Mary. And, in fine, deign, blessed Joseph, to make me participate in the delights of your holy death. Amen.

The Fatima Center/Our Lady’s Army of Advocates will be holding a conference at the DFW airport Hyatt Regency March 9-11 2018. A bevy of fantastic speakers are lined up, including this blog’s favorite Father Michael Rodriguez, Fr. Paul McDonald, Father Isaac Mary Relyea, Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt, and many other top speakers. Rates for the conference vary, the rate for the entire weekend is $270 which includes meals but not lodging, but walk-in rates starting at $20 are available for the main Saturday conference, which, yay! The Sunday conference is also only $20 if you brown bag it. What a great Lenten retreat! I pray my wife and I and perhaps some of the kids are able to attend, it should be a fantastic event.

The flyer is below. The complete list of speakers is here. Father Rodriguez is mostly speaking on Sunday, for those with a particular interest in hearing him, though I’m certain the entire conference will be wonderful and well worth attending. We should be able to make at least one of the days. The rest of the conference schedule is here.

This conference is not just for locals. Come in from Waco, Austin, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, El Paso, and much further afield! If you do plan to attend, please leave a comment and we can try to set up a meeting if you want. I’m sure I’ll/we’ll be at least one of the days.

What a blessed event for our area and dioceses. Though Mass will be offered each day of the conference and I’m certain the speakers will be quite busy, it would be wonderful if any of them could take a short trip over to Irving and drop by Mater Dei. I know their presence would be most appreciated, and it might be interesting for them to see such a large traditional parish. We’ll see.

I will post additional reminders and announcements as the event nears. If any of the organizers would like any particular aspects advertised, don’t hesitate to leave a comment or contact me at larryr103@gmail.com. I’m eager to spread the word on this great catechetical and social activity.

………and he also notes, that this sin of onanism – which I assume all readers know means self-abuse – does not have to be a sin of the person who falls into these inclinations. It can, in fact, be attributed to these sins in the parents, especially when combined with pornography use, which then allow the demons associated with these sins into the house, infecting even those who may not share the same sin (though, in most of these cases, they will). In the Old Testament, God reveals that the sins of the father are visited upon the children, even down to the 4th generation. This is actually a good reason for all Catholics, and especially converts, to know their family history. Masonry in the US was extremely common, especially throughout the farming communities of the Midwest, 100-150 years ago. I have several family members who were Masons, God rest their souls. Thus it was advisable that I, as father of my family, have minor exorcism prayers said in order to break any curses that might have been brought down on our family through this Masonic involvement. I also wonder if that Masonry is a source of the anti-Catholic animus that existed in some of my forebears, but that’s another subject.

At any rate, the sermon below is on a difficult topic, gender dysphoria, but the priest handles it with good care. I would say it is suitable for all fathers, almost all mothers and most children, but some families with the blessing of extreme innocence and delicate consciences may want to be careful with it. The priest notes that God made us male and female, and that this definition is made at the very core level of our beings – in our genetic codes. You either have a Y chromosome, or you don’t. Thus these transgender activists, pretending that gender is just an accident of socialization and can be “easily” changed with massive chemical intake, a change of dress, some makeup, and, oh yeah, permanent body mutilation, are insane. Actually, they’re not insane, they are in thrall to a hideous, satanic ideology, an ideology that seeks endless power for itself, and ruination for souls:

Transgenders, sodomites, and all their ilk (the growing “pedophile rights” movement) all pretend that their sin is somehow unique or different. Remember back when sodomites and their Leftist enablers told us they were born that way, and so it couldn’t be a sin? Now they say that not just sexuality but sex itself is entirely mutable and changeable, because it is convenient for them to do so. But as the sermon notes, it’s just another sin, and we all sin. Everyone of us struggles with various kinds of sins, and temptation to sin. Every single one. I’m an addict. There is infinitely more evidence that there is a genetic, “born that way” component to addiction than there is to sodomy or transgenderism. In fact, the genetic or hereditary component of addiction is pretty much proven – it definitely runs in families. That doesn’t make my sins of intoxication or compulsive sexual sins no longer sinful. And I am not “special” because I have this inclination. Everyone is born with a particular temperament, and particular inclinations towards sin. Some people have greater inclinations than others. Why? God knows, but the common view of the Saints is that God allows more suffering in those he loves most. His Son suffered infinitely for our sins, and God is incapable of loving anyone any more than Himself in His Son. Those tempted more are called to higher sanctity. Some horrible sinners have become tremendous Saints.

The priest’s explanations in the sermon are full of truth and love. It is very compassionate, but not in the modern, Francis of Rome Jesuitical sense. Not in the Father James Martin sense. In, you know, an actual Catholic sense.

I should add, also, that I don’t mean to imply above that if a kid falls into one of these lifestyles, it is necessarily the parent’s fault. I have seen kids falling away from wonderful families, families who, as well as an outsider can tell, seem to do everything right. People sin. There are myriad causes. The point above was just to note that these particular sins are very dangerous not only for parents but for their kids as well.

A couple of videos from Tumblar House below, critiquing the modern “liberal” democratic state and pointing out its internal contradictions. Indeed, I think a reasonable argument could be formed that the Catholic hating Karl Marx was somewhat on the right track in predicting that a then-emerging system would collapse of its own internal contradictions, but he was wrong to apply that reasoning to the economic sphere rather than the political. That’s not to say that anything else was at all right, and in fact I am being a bit deliberately tongue in cheek and provocative in even relating this to Marx, but the point is, there are far, far more identifiable and correctable problems with the modern (cult like) understanding of “democracy” as the pinnacle of political evolution than there were, or are, with capitalism as an economic system. That is not, to say, the modern “capitalist” state with heavy socialistic government interference almost everywhere in the world, and certainly in the global mass economy, with the government picking winners and losers and stacking the deck heavily in favor of corporate titans, but with the essence of capitalism, which is eminently Catholic and essentially the natural economic system of humankind – the exchange of goods and services at agreed upon rates by free actors acting in their own perceived interest.

Having said that, the two vids are interesting and worthy of some reasonable discussion, though I deplore the production values in the first. Being a host is harder than it looks! I’ve never heard of this Christophe Buffin de Chosal before, but it seems Charles Coulombe admires his work. Endorsements aside, I believe he does raise some valid and important points, that democracy, far from elevating the best of society to the top to serve as enlightened, dispassionate rulers, instead tends to advance the very worst – as the top political figures we’ve seen in this country over the past half-century, at least, have made abundantly clear. What tends to emerge is that, by pandering to the lowest common denominator in a society (buying special interest votes), hidden, or not so hidden, actors behind the scene can gorge themselves on the taxpayer teat while more or less ignoring the will of the masses. Goodness, to take one issue alone, there have been huge majorities (in the US, at least) in favor of drastically limiting LEGAL immigration in this country for decades, not to speak of illegal immigration, and yet the politicians, beholden to elites who desire cheap labor, continue to enact laws and policies that not only permit but encourage immigration at rates, and from cultures, that are demonstrably eating away at the fabric of not only the United States but the entire West.

Anyway, I am out of time, but discuss. I know many trads and hardcore Catholics tend to be critical of the modern liberal erstwhile democratic state, anyway, and there are probably a number of monarchists among us, but is democracy doomed to fail? Will it take down the entire culture with us, as it practically did the great ancient civilization of the Mediterranean, collapsing into first despotic rule and then total civilizational implosion, at least in the West? Are there ways out of this that are reasonably possible?

There will be a public discussion – a sort of debate, I guess – on the matter of how to respond to the current, absolutely unprecedented (in recorded history) Bishop of Rome we are confronted with sponsored by the University of Dallas tomorrow, Wed Jan 24 at 7:30 pm. The discussion is between Ross Douthat of the New York Slimes Times and extreme liberal Austin Ivereigh, and is moderated by journalist John Allen. So, basically, two leftists against a moderately conservative neo – the Left never appreciates a fair fight (as Jordan Peterson’s utter destruction of a British feminist last week demonstrated).

Here’s a blurb on the discussion –

UD will be hosting a public discussion of the current papacy this Wednesday (the 24th) at 7:30 pm in the Moody Performance Hall in downtown Dallas. It will be between Ross Douthat of the NYT and British journalist Austen Ivereigh, moderated by John Allen. These are three of the most prominent Catholic journalists in the English-speaking world, and we are very excited to have them here in Dallas. [Ivereigh is a close associate of the extremely progressive former Cardinal of Westminster Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, and basically gloated about the St. Gallen mafia and their role in enthroning Francis is a recent book]

This will be the first time in this country that one of Francis’s defenders (Ivereigh) and one of his critics (Douthat) have engaged each other face-to-face in public. Their moderator, John Allen, is probably the most well-known Vatican journalist in the world. [but definitely has a liberal bent, though less obvious than many of his confreres in the mainstream Catholic media. So it’s basically two against one]

We promise a fascinating and enlightening discussion, and I encourage all ICONers to attend. Tickets are $10 (free to UD faculty/staff/students).

I’ve got a wife with strep and probably bronchitis after nearly two weeks of flu, and several sick kids. So, no way I will attend. Having said that, part of me is interested to see what Douthat has to say, though I suspect I already know it. He is something of a critic of Francis, though hardly so thorough or penetrating as more traditional critics. Nevertheless, the interplay between the apologist Ivereigh and the critic Douthat could be interesting, though I doubt Allen provides anything like a level playing field, which will be maddening.

The thing is, what I think about this pope – Bishop of Rome, whatever – is pretty much settled. He is what he is. Goodness, as a man who understands the importance of gesture and media coverage, giving a pontifical medal to a rabid, murderous pro-abort the week of the March for Life in the US speaks for itself. He is pope, somehow, though I don’t understand, and God has allowed this for some reason I don’t understand, but I cannot see how Francis can be described as Catholic. He is a leftist ideologue with a wicked mean streak projecting an insincere joviality and the most publicity seeking “humility” in the history of ever. Much of that could be forgiven, however, if he did not so obviously loathe both the Faith and those who hold it. The problem is not with a pope with personal character failings. There have been plenty of those, and the Church weathered them just fine. The problem is a pope who is patently at war with the Faith.

At any rate, the tix (general admission only) are $5, so it’s a fairly cheap night out. Plan on another $10 or so for parking at least. I hope some video is shot and it shows up on Youtube. I am sort of interested in this debate to see where it goes, or rather, how far Douthat is willing to go in a hostile setting. He’s OK on some topics.

If any readers attend, leave a comment on your impressions. I’d appreciate it.

I think kudos to UD, for having the guts to host this debate, and even permit some criticism of Francis, muted though it may be? Of course, harsh criticism of popes from the Left has been not only permitted, but the central pillar of Catholic higher education around the world and especially in the West for decades, but this time it’s coming from the “wrong” side, the damnable right wingers.

I certainly admire Michael Matt very much, and almost always agree with him, but I think he may have gotten a bit ahead of himself when he advances, at least to a degree, the idea that the fact that 3 bishops and one cardinal (including some emeriti), as of about 10 days ago, had signed onto the statement of the 3 bishops of Kazakhstan, led by the redoubtable Bishop Athanasius Schneider, which asserted their rejection of Francis’ attempt to gut Catholic moral belief by permitting constant, regularized sacrilege through reception of the Blessed Sacrament by the divorced and civilly remarried.

Whew……..that was a run on. Anyway, I’m all for Schneider’s statement, I’m all for the reaction, but what I am is doubtful that this will be even the beginning of some kind of generalized reaction among the hierarchy, or even the priesthood, against the apparent errors of the Franciscan porntificate (see what I did there?).

This is not the first such reaction. We’ve had the statement by priests that they would continue to teach the Church’s constant belief regarding marriage. That topped out at under 1000 priests, last time I looked, in spite of the over 400,000 active priests in ministry today. So, about 0.25% of priests took even this minimal stand. Likewise, the few hundred priests and theologians who signed the statement led by Dr. Joseph Shaw similarly accusing Francis of promoting heresy, probably constituting much less than one tenth of one percent of all the priests and theologians in the world today. And there was the Dubia, which only 4 Cardinals out of well nearly 200 endorsed.

There are over 4000 active bishops in the Church today. The fact that 7 have endorsed this effort, again, indicates a support of less than 0.2% of the hierarchy for this very necessary rebuttal toward the Bishop of Rome.

Look, once again, I personally endorse and support all these efforts, but I have been discouraged by the lack of support they receive from those with formal roles within the ecclesiastical structure. Just as the entire traditional movement is purported to consist of perhaps 1-1.5 million people worldwide, and thus constitutes barely a tenth of one percent of the supposed 1.2 billion Catholics in the world today (but since the number of actual, active, believing Catholics might be 1/10th that number, we do make up a much larger percentage of the “practical Church”), and the hierarchy has managed to, at most, successfully pigeonhole us off, I think they can just as easily keep ignoring that 0.1% or 0.2% of bishops, priests, theologians, or whatever as troublemakers, miscreants, neo-Pelagians, or whatever. Our numbers are simply too small, on the human level, to have any kind of impact. I think it would take something more like 60 or 70, maybe even 150-200, bishops signing onto the Kazakhstan statement before it would start to really make waves. Even 200 would not constitute even 5% of the episcopate, and note that this ratio does not include the number of emerati that are around today.

Realistically, traditional Catholics are about the same in number, and about as relevant, humanly speaking, as the “Old Catholics” were at the time of Vatican I. How much influence did the Old Catholics have on the Church at Vatican I, and how much have they had since (as they have fallen into neo-liberal, pseudo-protestant heresy and even blasphemy, aping the worst of the most extreme progressive sects)? God forbid the same should happen to traditional Catholics. I don’t believe it will.

I bring all this up not to be a pessimist but to inject some realism into the discussion. I have promoted every one of these actions – the priest’s statement of adherence to the Church’s moral doctrine, the filial correction, the dubia, and now this statement from Kazakhstan. I am happy to do so. Indeed, nothing would make me happier – in a sense – than to wake up tomorrow and read that 500 bishops had signed onto this new “Athanasian Creed.” At the same time, however, I think we need to be realistic, and not develop unfounded hopes. In addition, while the Truth and justice, I think, demand such firm correction from bishops and cardinals against any error taught in the Church from any source, I also recognize that the process of exposing the error and excising it from the Church could be incredibly painful – though surely, in every respect, the right, just, and necessary thing to do (like a painful and difficult operation, necessary to save a life, but something no one looks forward to).

I also know we need things to talk about, and that folks need encouragement from time to time. So I don’t take too much issue with the argument forwarded by Matt, I just wouldn’t stake a great deal of hope on it.

Cliches exist because they often serve as a sort of shorthand for truth, an often glib but also uncannily accurate description of a place, an event, a tendency, etc. Now, cliches can serve to represent and advance unfair bias, and often do, and they can badly misrepresent and miss vital nuance. But having said that, the cliche of the mean ‘ol trad Catholic is probably the dominant, knee jerk reaction we trads have to contend with. And, not entirely unfairly, it must probably be said.

How has this come about? Likewise, what about the trad cliche of the silly, far from groovy, get over the 60s hippy dippy happy clappy define your own truth Novus Ordo type? How true are these descriptions, and from where might they stem?

My new sole source for blogging material, Tumblar House, has some answers below, which I found pretty insightful. In this case, I thought Charles Coulombe’s confrere made perhaps the most insightful contribution – we trads/faithful Catholics are the product of long years of avoiding and overcoming constant deadly threats, both to ourselves and to our children – you think a few years of that might make someone a little reserved in charity and prone to pounce on perceived threats with maybe a bit more relish than absolutely necessary? And how about the rank failure of the hierarchy to define and defend Truth, so that laity have, by default, often had to step into this role? Think that might also have had some less than perfect fruit?

This short segment also provides a keen insight into that strange entity, the former devout pre-conciliar Catholic who now so loved the old Mass and all the old devotions, and now, as a septuagenarian or octogenarian finds them repellent. This person may or may not be a hippy casualty leftist, they may be quite orthodox in their Novus Ordo way, but they just viscerally hate the old Mass. How could that person, on an objective level, exist, when the TLM is so manifestly superior on practically every level possible? Well, they went through the incredibly jarring experience of being told by the Church, their Mother, that all they loved and held dear was not just far from ideal, but positively harmful/dangerous, and would be replaced by something “better.” I can’t imagine how painful that must have been, nor the depth of Faith those folks had, and have, to have seen them through that experience. That’s not to say their reactions, then or now, were always the right ones or even virtuous (mass contraceptive use, anyone?), but it does help to explain how these people came about. I think it hard for someone like me, who converted on the cusp of the 21st century, to comprehend just how obedient Catholics were in the 1960s, and the entire expectation of obedience that was woven into the fabric of Catholic lives at that time. That ethos, once such a cornerstone of the Faith (to an extent that m may have been excessive and even unhealthy, as natural as it was given the external attacks the Church faced from 1789-1958, say) has been one of the biggest casualties of the collapse of hierarchical authority since the “new springtime” of Vatican Il Duce.

Basically the Church is badly broken, probably in worse shape than she’s ever been, and that has left the sheep largely fending for themselves. We should not be surprised that under such circumstances, the laity would be left confused and even divided into hostile camps. This will persist, in my surmise, until the revolution that afflicted the Church in the 60s/70s (and today) is definitively rolled back, either by overt act or by slow submersion beneath a renewed authentic Catholicism.

I posted some videos yesterday from the Tumblar House video interviews of Charles Coulombe. Some folks liked the take Coulombe had on the difficult issue of the SSPX – in the video below, he tackles another very difficult issue, that of Fr. Feeney and his “excommunication.” Once again, Coulombe covers a complex matter with subtlety and panache. He rightly notes that if Feeney taught error, it would be very difficult to claim that many past popes, Saints, and Fathers did not similarly err. That’s not to say Feeney did no wrong. He may have gone a bit to excess in greatly diminishing the scope of baptism of desire, BUT at the same time the major thrust of his argument is one that cannot be rejected as false. That is to say, the process of condemning Feeney was abusive, in that there can’t be a dogmatic refutation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus without throwing out vast portions of the Doctrine of the Faith, and condemning numerous great Catholic theologians in the process.

Another important point brought up below is the extent to which Feeney’s belief has been misrepresented.

Perhaps this take might be a bit controversial but it aligns well with my own study of the matter. Like Coulombe, it’s not completely clear the extent to which Feeney formally taught error or was formally corrected for doing so, but I am certain that there has been a massive attempt, predating Vatican II by 20 years or more, to reduce Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus to meaninglessness, and that this move has played a primary role in practically neutering the Church’s grand 2000 year history of selfless evangelization:

Coulombe looks like he enjoys a good meal and a drink every now and then. My kind of guy.

Note the key role Benedict XVI plays in the fleshing out of this argument. That’s my main problem with the rejection of EENS in general and Father Feeney in particular – whatever the theological fine points, the major thrust has been the total gutting of the Church’s evangelization efforts AND a collapse in the lived Faith of tens of millions of Catholics, because the modern ecumaniacal approach that more or less everyone is saved, and in fact that one is essentially penalized by being a Catholic, has an impetuous internal logic that has eviscerated the great well of evangelical power the Church possessed until recent decades.

It is interesting to me how much venom is directed at Fr. Feeney and any perceived followers of the belief attributed to him, not by liberals, but by traditional Catholics. It’s the reverse of the obverse side of the coin that says “SSPX = schismatic” as a knee jerk reaction, where the trads turn around and say “Feeneyites = heretics,” though the juridical standing of Feeney’s actual teachings was never fully settled, unless you want to go with the opinion of the same ordinary, Cardinal Cushing, who a few years later deliberately conspired with Planned Murderhood to overcome Catholic legislative resistance to get contraception legalized in his archdiocese and state.

Here is the book Coulombe references in the Q&A. Seems like he rather strongly believes that the practical abjuration of EENS has played a vital role in the crisis in the Church. If you want a little peak behind the veil at the kind of tactics used by the neo-Cath crowd (a term of convenience I don’t really like), make sure to read the really abominable review by Karl Keating. Pure ad hominem – shocking, I know. But I’ve already been called – in effect – a no account scumbag almost certainly hiding some dire dark secret by Keating and his attack dog Shea for not broadcasting my “real name” on every post I make, though my name appears scores of times on this blog in various forms, so I have my own ax to grind, I suppose.

I’d appreciate reading your thoughts on Coulombe’s take on this subject.

“Christ of the Fishermen.” Reader LaGallina sent me the following description of a beautiful bit of Catholic culture, placed where the Brownsville Ship Channel meets the Gulf of Mexico (roughly).

From La Gallina:

The statue is called “el Cristo de los Pescadores” and is turned slightly to face the channel and greet the shrimp boats when they are coming back to shore. A Brownsville family brought this from Italy back in the 90s (I think) after they won a settlement with the shrimp boat company after their two sons were killed on the boat. They also hold a huge party on the grounds around the statue which includes a public rosary (with a gigantic rosary made by an elderly gent from Port Isabel), catered food for everyone (invited or not), fireworks, and of course the ever-present “matachines.” (Do you think the bishops before Vatican 2 had matachines dancers at their Catholic events?)

No, I don’t think so.

LaGallina also apprised me of Francis’ elevation of a Father Mario Alberto Aviles to be auxiliary Bishop of Brownsville. This is noteworthy for the fact that Fr. Aviles comes from the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, which operates one of the few “canonically regular” TLM in the Rio Grande Valley area (the only other one of which I am aware is at the Brownsville cathedral, if that one is still going. Perhaps LaGallina can confirm).

Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville is reputed to be pretty solidly orthodox and relatively friendly to the TLM. Coming from a branch of the Oratorians based mostly in northern Mexico which is widely known for its liturgical and doctrinal orthodoxy (though it is quite small), it may be hoped that Bishop-elect Aviles may increase this disposition even more. I know several readers who have assisted at the St. Jude Thaddeus parish in Pfarr administered by the Oratorians, and they all speak highly of the beautiful TLM and solid catechesis offered there.

However, it should be noted that Bishop-elect Aviles hasn’t been pastor of St. Jude Thaddeus for 15 years, so I cannot really speak to his personal qualities or adherence to tradition. I am told he seems down to earth and pretty solid overall.

Now, El Cristo de los Pescadores. Very nice:

Statues like this, and even entire parishes, have long been dedicated to Catholic mariners in major ports around the world. For my money, one of the most beautiful parishes in the world, Our Lady of Bon Succours in Montreal, has a heavy nautical emphasis and a close association with the maritime trades. Why, several of the Apostles including St. Peter were, of course, pescadores, themselves.

It’s another aspect of the still heartbreakingly deteriorating Catholic culture that deserves widespread revival. Good on the family for dedicating a lovely statue like this to the shrimpers and other seafarers of the south Texas coast.

Not that he’ll ever read it, this post is more for my own benefit, and possibly yours.

Before I begin, I will note that I am taking Knowles straight up on his own declarations. If he is practicing some weird and really obscure form of “humor,” that would be a problem (and scandal) in and of itself, but a different one from what I identify below.

Who is Michael Knowles, and why should committed Catholics care? He is the host of an internet podcast under Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire umbrella. He hosts several episodes a week. He is a proud, at times even militant, Catholic. Much of his program is dedicated to answering protestant “questions” regarding Catholicism, which means, in reality, refuting arrogant, ignorant charges from American evangelicals against the Church Jesus Christ – not Martin Luther, not John Calvin, not Henry VIII, not Mary Baker Eddy – founded.

And he does a good job. In fact, he has at times given me to wonder whether he is a Trad, such is his strong grasp of catechesis, theology, etc. He certainly presents liturgical sentiments which align quite well with the TLM and against the Novus Ordo. He is well read in Church teaching and especially Church history. He’s pointed out on several occasions the way Francis, Bishop of Rome is at odds with Catholic Dogma. He provides such an interesting perspective I was really starting to wonder if we had the second (but better??) coming of Mike Church.

And then there was that moment……you know the one, the one where the needle goes from playing a lovely melody to sliding all the way across the record……yeah, that one.

That moment came when Knowles, in a spoken word commercial he gave for a mattress company during one of his podcasts, mentioned that he and his fiancée just love sharing a bed made of these wonderful mattresses.

That’s………..that’s a problem. That’s a very big problem.

I don’t ever like to peer into consciences and convict others of sin, but Knowles has done so himself. He has declared that he is committing ongoing, grievous sin, at the very least by continuing to expose himself to incredible temptation by sharing a bed with a woman other than his wife, but more likely by advertising the fact that he and she are ongoing fornicators. Even if they both sleep in PVC bodysuits that cover them head to foot, even if they’ve never so much as kissed, this situation would be sinful alone for the scandal it gives. You are basically advertising for fornication, and proudly proclaiming yourself a Catholic while doing so.

I’m sorry, Mr. Knowles, but you are not the solution, but the problem. This is the very crisis the Church has faced since the 60s, where public spokesman, whether they at one time had a formal mission from the Church such as Fr. Charles Curran, or self-appointed ones like yourself (and me), publicly deviating from the Faith, even attacking and undermining it. I have not so far heard you directly verbally challenge or undermine a Dogma or Doctrine……..at least until that mattress ad. And then I heard several other mentions of your fiancée wherein you made clear your relationship is fundamentally indifferent from all the pagans of the world these days, lost in sin.

Which brings up an interesting point – while Knowles clearly acknowledges the evils Francis is visiting on the Church, is he at the same time positioning himself to be the beneficiary of some of this doctrinal reformulation, especially regarding reception of Communion while in a manifest state of grievous, probably mortal, sin? Seems quite possible.

Are you receiving the Blessed Sacrament, Mr. Knowles, while persisting in this relationship with your fiancée? Your podcast statements would seem to indicate so. Thus, you have added sacrilege to fornication and scandal. Don’t read I Cor xi:25-29 much?

I am really at a loss how a man so obviously well-formed can be openly and proudly persisting in a relationship that is grievously scandalous at best (and which he makes pains to announce in most episodes of late). He seems to have a nearly Traditional level of formation, to the extent that I would almost wonder if he hasn’t received regular trad catechesis, and, one would tend to assume, Confession? Has this never come up? My experience of multiple FSSP/SSPX confessors would lead me to believe that any and all of them would instantly point out this massive moral problem, were they aware of it.

So, I won’t be listening to him anymore. Until he recognizes the huge scandal he has given and indicates some public contrition, he is actually a very dangerous man, all the more so due to his talents and gifts of formation. He sounds like the real deal. He sounds like a really authentic Catholic, and he is reaching out to tens of thousands of protestants and giving them a very bad idea of what the Catholic Church is all about. I haven’t listened to many of his shows – maybe 7 or 8 – but I’ve never heard him called out for his scandal, even from hostile protestants (which probably shows how virtually all of them are so morally confused in this age of error that they see nothing wrong with a little pre-marital fornication).

I would advise readers to stay far away from this charlatan. He certainly had me fooled. Once one is confronted with a figure mixing truth and error, consuming their product becomes risky, at best. Given the other excellent sources available, there is no reason to expose oneself to this risk.

I will pray for him, and especially pray that some really good traditional priest reaches out to him and shakes him from his morally damnable situation, and convinces him to make some public act of contrition for the scandal he is causing on an ongoing basis.

Mr. Knowles, if you read this, reach out to me and I will get you in touch with multiple very solid priests who will make abundantly clear the grave danger to which you are exposing your soul, and that of your fiancee. It’s all well and good to declare ourselves committed Catholics so long as that commitment costs us little – it is when it costs us dear is where the rubber meets the road. Take up your cross and follow Christ. Deus Vult.

For the declaration upon which this post is based, see the below, if you must, at 8:28: